Estonian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2020-Mar

Is coffee ground vomiting important? Findings from a large bleeding unit database and outcomes at 30 days.

Ainult registreeritud kasutajad saavad artikleid tõlkida
Logi sisse
Link salvestatakse lõikelauale
James Schneider
John Thomson
Andrew Fraser
Balasubramaniam Vijayan
Paul Bassett
John Leeds

Märksõnad

Abstraktne

'Coffee ground' vomiting (CGV) has classically been considered a sign of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. There is a paucity of data concerning endoscopic findings and outcomes in patients presenting with CGV. The aim of this study was to analyze endoscopic yield and 30-day outcomes in CGV patients.Analysis was performed over the period 1992-2005 and four groups were identified: CGV alone, hematemesis alone, melena alone, and hematemesis and melena. Endoscopic yield, requirement for blood transfusion, rebleeding, and mortality rate at 30 days were calculated and compared using logistic regression analysis.6054 patients (mean age 61.3 years, 3538 male) were included in the study. The hematemesis group was younger compared with the other groups. Therefore, endoscopic yield was adjusted for age and sex. CGV was associated with a significantly lower risk of gastric ulcer, duodenal ulcer, varices, gastric cancer, esophageal cancer, and Mallory-Weiss tears compared with some or all of the other groups. CGV was associated with an increased risk of esophagitis and no source was found. CGV was associated with a lower rate of blood transfusion and rebleeding (all P < 0.0001) but 30-day mortality rates were similar. CGV was less likely to require endoscopic intervention compared with the other groups (all P < 0.001).CGV is associated with a lower endoscopic yield, requirement for blood transfusion, rebleeding rate, and potential for intervention compared to those with hematemesis, melena or both. Mortality rates are similar suggesting a nonbleeding cause and therefore questions the role of endoscopy in CGV.

Liitu meie
facebooki lehega

Kõige täiuslikum ravimtaimede andmebaas, mida toetab teadus

  • Töötab 55 keeles
  • Taimsed ravimid, mida toetab teadus
  • Maitsetaimede äratundmine pildi järgi
  • Interaktiivne GPS-kaart - märgistage ürdid asukohas (varsti)
  • Lugege oma otsinguga seotud teaduspublikatsioone
  • Otsige ravimtaimi nende mõju järgi
  • Korraldage oma huvisid ja hoidke end kursis uudisteuuringute, kliiniliste uuringute ja patentidega

Sisestage sümptom või haigus ja lugege ravimtaimede kohta, mis võivad aidata, tippige ürdi ja vaadake haigusi ja sümptomeid, mille vastu seda kasutatakse.
* Kogu teave põhineb avaldatud teaduslikel uuringutel

Google Play badgeApp Store badge